Cognitive Mechanism of Influence of Subjective Social Class on Prosocial Risky Behaviour.
Prosocial risky behaviour (PRB) combines risk and prosociality, defined as risk‐taking for the benefit of others or society. Its differences across subjective social classes and underlying mechanisms are unclear. Study 1 (n = 590) used a questionnaire to explore the relationship between subjective s...
| Publicado en: | European Journal of Social Psychology Vol. 55; no. 7; pp. 1306 - 1325 |
|---|---|
| Autores principales: | , , , , |
| Formato: | equations & formulas research tables/charts Journal Article |
| Publicado: |
Wiley-Blackwell
Dec2025
|
| Acceso en línea: | Ver este registro en EBSCOhost |
| fields | @attributes: recordID: 1 pdfLink: plink: https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ccm&AN=190212310&site=ehost-live header: @attributes: shortDbName: ccm uiTerm: 190212310 longDbName: CINAHL Complete uiTag: AN controlInfo: bkinfo: dissinfo: jinfo: jid: 00462772 58Q jtl: European Journal of Social Psychology issn: 00462772 maglogo: Y pubinfo: dt: Dec2025 vid: 55 iid: 7 pid: 480 pub: Wiley-Blackwell place: Malden, Massachusetts artinfo: ui: 190212310 186803114 190212310 190212310 10.1002/ejsp.70013 190212310 ppf: 1306 ppct: 19 formats: tig: atl: Cognitive Mechanism of Influence of Subjective Social Class on Prosocial Risky Behaviour. aug: au: Liu, Changlin Zhao, Boqiang Chen, Jiwen Zhan, Youlong Hu, Ping affil: Department of Psychology, Renmin University of China, Beijing, China sug: subj: Cognition Evaluation Social Class Psychosocial Factors Risk Taking Behavior Evaluation Social Behavior Evaluation Human Funding Source Male Female Questionnaires Cross Sectional Studies Computer Simulation Scales Linear Regression Analysis of Variance Descriptive Statistics Confidence Intervals China Adult Random Sample Data Analysis Software Correlational Studies T-Tests Post Hoc Analysis Causality Adult: 19-44 years Male Female ab: Prosocial risky behaviour (PRB) combines risk and prosociality, defined as risk‐taking for the benefit of others or society. Its differences across subjective social classes and underlying mechanisms are unclear. Study 1 (n = 590) used a questionnaire to explore the relationship between subjective social class and PRB. Study 2 (n = 120) manipulated subjective social class and set risk levels in prosocial risky dilemmas to examine causal relationships and boundary conditions. Study 3 (n = 120) used cognitive computational modelling to clarify effects and explore cognitive mechanisms. Results showed the following: (1) subjective social class negatively predicts PRB, especially in the 30%–50% risk range; (2) low social class individuals have lower loss aversion, higher guilt aversion and value PRB more; (3) two decision preferences parallel mediate the relationship between subjective social class and PRB. These findings offer insights for mitigating social class differences' negative impacts and enhancing prosocial levels in risky situations. pubtype: Academic Journal doctype: equations & formulas research tables/charts Journal Article ougenre: Article language: English refInfo: holdings: @attributes: islocal: N |
|---|